Some time long ago, on a forum far far away, an eager Survivor fan decided to apply media theory and statistical analysis to his favorite TV show to try and determine who the winner of the season was based on the editing. There are all sorts of different Survivor fans – from casuals, to superfans, to newbie fans. But there is a special selection of the Survivor nerddom that are known as the Edgic community, and each season they dedicate their time to thoroughly analyzing the individual edit of each player.

Edgic works on three components, Rating, Tone, and Visibility to give out an Edgic, and this goes along for the season. (Click the images to enlarge)

The whole point of this thread is to see if modern TAR has editing conventions that may lead us to predict the winner.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2016, 08:12:14 PM by gamerfan09 »

Logged

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

Potential Trends:Disclaimer: This is all info gleamed from the Friday era of The Amazing Race AKA Seasons 25 and up.

*There may be a team that screams "Winner Contender" on the first leg or early on in the Race with a strong CP edit that eventually crumble into obscurity and loses.

Examples:-Tim & Te Jay (Started fading away from Episode Four)-Jelani & Jenny (They were winning until Thailand 2 hit and then from then on they would be just pretty MOR or MORN until their eventual 3rd place)-Tanner & Josh (Strong edit until they pretty much just became background characters at times from Episode Five and up)

*There may also be a strong contender "shock boot". (Think of this as the surprising merge boot Survivor loves to do a lot.)

Examples:-Kym & Alli-Jeff & Jackie-Denise & James-Earl

*There are also some teams who start out alright and emerge as strong contenders who eventually lose.

Examples:-Misti & Jim-Hayley & Blair (From Episode Six and up, they randomly became top contenders)-Tiffany & Krista (Emerged once the second Africa leg hit.)

*I'm unsure about the rest... but I seem to notice that TAR loves to give generally MOR winners with a few CPs that are Positively Toned. They can even be OTT a bit for a few episodes, but not too much (the reason why Justin and Diana were never winner contenders from the start).

« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 07:22:09 AM by gamerfan09 »

Logged

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

Confessional Counts are important because unlike most big RTV shows, TAR leans more on voiceovers as well as teams doing things. A team with a lot of confessionals fully explaining their decisions and fleshing their story arc out on an episode is due a CP edit. For Example, TAR26 Episode 3 only has 24 confessionals, and that even includes the voiceovers. Mike/Rochelle had NINE of these, and thus, they received a CP edit in addition to their in-race commentary and them having a clear story-arc for that episode.

Screentime is essentially, how much time we see a team. (can also be defined by number of cuts to teams)

I define screentime as follows.First-Person Screentime: How much a team is full front and centre with conversation.Second-Person Screentime: How a team is talked about by another team followed by a quick-cut of them + A team being shown doing basic stuff without any conversation from them (running, doing a task, panting, etc.)Third-Person Screentime: How much a team can be seen in the foreground of another team's establishing shot.

I combine all of the screentime (in cuts) and divide it by the teams remaining to get an average Screentime score for the leg.

For instance, Episode Three of The Amazing Race 26 has a total of 296 cuts, and that divided by 9 (the number of teams who raced in the leg) would result in at least a 33 average. Every team this leg satisfies the average, hence, no UTR edits for anyone, throwing everyone on at least a MOR3 rating.

The teams with multiple confessionals throughout the leg and game-talk would boost them from MOR to CP, and etc. It is also very important to note that TAR loves to use Toning more than the other big CBS Reality shows.

Once I'm done with my calculations, I assign Edgic Tones and Score.

How do I assign?:

I follow Survivor logic mixed with TAR logic. What's that? Well, Survivor likes to reward CP winners. TAR usually loves a combination of CP/MOR/Positively-Toned teams. (Once again, I am only analysing from TAR25 onwards, so earlier seasons are out the window... for now.)

For example, Amy & Maya were UTR early on, but they were edited positively (their only one blowup in the Race even got fully edited out). They would then ride on UTR and MORP edits before finally getting a few CPP edits until they made it to the end. Same with Kelsey & Joey.

I determine contenders based on how Survivor Edgic determines them, in the sense that the teams with a string of CP-MOR-Positively Toned edits each leg have better chances of winning.

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

It's really cool that you've decided to do this, but I'm also jealous of the amount of time you have on your hands I hadn't heard of edgic (it's derived from edit + logic btw, I don't think that was mentioned here) before Redmond started making his own for the current Survivor season. And I'm very interested & a big fan now.

If this thread doesn't get moved to spoilers(which it inevitably will due to people not understanding that winner spec =/= info from filming spoilers) I would make a chart, even if I am trudging through Cambodia.

I'm posting full 25-27 edgic soon, but there's one trend I DEFINITELY noticed in modern TAR.

There will always be a team that screams "Winner Contender" on the first leg with a strong CP edit and will eventually crumble into obscurity and lose.

Examples:-Tim & Te Jay (Started fading away from Leg 4)-Jelani & Jenny (They were winning until Thailand 2 hit and then from then on they would be just pretty MOR or MORN tbh)-Tanner & Josh (Strong edit until they pretty much just became background at times from Africa 2 onwards)

There will also be a strong contender "shock boot".

Examples:-Kym & Alli (Self-Explanatory)-Jeff & Jackie (IDK for me they seemed like they were winning until their shock boot)-Denise & James-Earl (They had unusually strong CP edits until their boot which was not shock at all bc of crap leg design)

There are also some teams who start out alright and end up being strong contenders who eventually lose.

Examples:-Misti & Jim (I was sure they were winning until they suddenly went with a streak of more toned edits, but they were still my number one contender heading into the finale.)-Hayley & Blair (They started getting a semblance of a winning edit from Monaco onwards IMO.)-Tiffany & Krista (Self-explanatory lol.)

Is this not more to do with their placements and not their edits? Obviously a shock boot can only be portrayed as such if a team has actually done well ranking wise, therefore eliminated before their time.

This is an interesting concept gamerfan09, but I am not sure the Survivor edgic rules really apply to The Amazing Race. Firstly, TAR has two people per team as oppose to individual players in Survivor. How do you accommodate for drastic tone differences between team members in an episode? There have clearly been some major differences in team members visibility and personalities throughout the seasons (Tim/Marie and Justin/Diana spring to mind). It is not easy to model both members as a whole with such edgic rules.

Further, just because you're a boring, useless team or a villainous, rude team does not mean you cannot win TAR. A Survivor winner is rewarded by the jury for playing the best game. In TAR, the team who runs the final leg the best will win. It is more unlikely for a castaway to win the game if he is not looked upon well by his jury members. It is just as likely for a villainous or boring team to win the race as oppose to anyone else - they just need to win the final leg. I am not sure how one can as easily pinpoint a TAR winner using such a method.

Please note I am not saying looking at the editing is useless, in fact, I believe such devices can be used to deduce the winners ahead of the finale airing. However, I do think that such a process is much more complex than the standard Survivor edgic framework. Perhaps you may need to consider further aspects which are not explored in the Survivor edgic rules.

I agree with oval on some points.I think that overall Edgic has no use if it's done without much analysing. And I don't know if you're doing it, gamerfan.There really are some very weird results in your TAR27 edgic, especially with the way you declare winner contenders How is that even determined? A lot of things just don't make sense.

And yes, being spoilt while doing an edgic (reference to TAR28) surely doesn't help. It will create bias.

I agree with oval on some points.I think that overall Edgic has no use if it's done without much analysing. And I don't know if you're doing it, gamerfan.There really are some very weird results in your TAR27 edgic, especially with the way you declare winner contenders How is that even determined? A lot of things just don't make sense.

Point A: I do analyse. While watching, I take note of several things. (Confessional Count/First-Person Screentime/Second-Person Screentime/Third-Person Screentime).

Confessional Counts are important because unlike most big RTV shows, TAR leans more on voiceovers as well as teams doing things. A team with a lot of confessionals fully explaining them and fleshing their story arc out is due a CP edit. In fact, TAR26 Leg 3 only has 24 confessionals, and that even includes the voiceovers. Mike/Rochelle had NINE of these, and thus, their CP edit in addition to them commenting while doing tasks and they are fully fleshed out in this leg.

Screentime is essentially, how much time we see a team. (can also be defined by number of cuts to teams)

I define it as follows.First-Person Screentime: How much a team is full front and centre and talks.Second-Person Screentime: How a team is talked about by another team followed by a quick-cut of them + A team being shown doing basic stuff without any conversation from them (running, doing a task, panting, etc.)Third-Person Screentime: How much a team can be seen in the foreground of another team's establishing shot.

I combine all of the screentime and divide it by the teams remaining to get an average Screentime score for the leg.

For instance, TAR26 Leg 3 has a total of 296 cuts, and divided by 9 would result in at least a 33 average. Every team this leg satisfies the average, hence, no UTR for anybody, leaving them at MOR. (In comparison, Leg 2 had about 274 cuts, and having 10 teams, an average would be 27. Aly/Steve only hit 16 of these cuts, and no confessionals at all. However, they were seen mostly at the Detour, and their positivity doing the task helped make them UTRP2.)

The teams with multiple confessionals throughout the leg and game-talk would boost them from MOR to CP, and etc. I do notice that TAR uses toning a lot though so there's that.

Point B: I follow Survivor logic mixed with TAR logic. What's that? Well, Survivor likes to reward CP winners. TAR usually loves a combination of CP/MOR/Positively-Toned teams. (As I said, I am only analysing from TAR25 onwards, so earlier seasons are out the window... for now.) Amy & Maya were UTR early on, but they were edited positively (their only one blowup in the Race even got fully edited out). They would then ride on UTR and MOR before finally getting a few CPP edits until they made it to the end. Same with Kelsey & Joey.

I determine contenders based on how Survivor Edgic determines them, in the sense that the teams with a string of CP-MOR-Positively Toned edits each leg have a chance to win.

In the End: Whoa I wrote a lot and again, this is just for fun, I am 100% an EDGIC newbie Thanks for the comments guys!

« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 04:04:55 PM by gamerfan09 »

Logged

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

Is this not more to do with their placements and not their edits? Obviously a shock boot can only be portrayed as such if a team has actually done well ranking wise, therefore eliminated before their time.

This is an interesting concept gamerfan09, but I am not sure the Survivor edgic rules really apply to The Amazing Race. Firstly, TAR has two people per team as oppose to individual players in Survivor. How do you accommodate for drastic tone differences between team members in an episode? There have clearly been some major differences in team members visibility and personalities throughout the seasons (Tim/Marie and Justin/Diana spring to mind). It is not easy to model both members as a whole with such edgic rules.

Further, just because you're a boring, useless team or a villainous, rude team does not mean you cannot win TAR. A Survivor winner is rewarded by the jury for playing the best game. In TAR, the team who runs the final leg the best will win. It is more unlikely for a castaway to win the game if he is not looked upon well by his jury members. It is just as likely for a villainous or boring team to win the race as oppose to anyone else - they just need to win the final leg. I am not sure how one can as easily pinpoint a TAR winner using such a method.

Please note I am not saying looking at the editing is useless, in fact, I believe such devices can be used to deduce the winners ahead of the finale airing. However, I do think that such a process is much more complex than the standard Survivor edgic framework. Perhaps you may need to consider further aspects which are not explored in the Survivor edgic rules.

Point A: Considering there has been something always about the Merge boot on recent Survivor seasons having a potentially winning contender going during those, so does TAR at random moments.

Point B: I admit that it is indeed difficult, as there are always two team members. But in the end, they are still technically playing as ONE team, and thus, the actions of both will always contribute to their EDGIC score each leg. Especially if they argue, work together well, and etc.

Point C: I agree, but then again, as mentioned above, I am new to this and doing this for fun. Perhaps my continuos progress trying to figure out these editing tricks (where the editing has shifted in style via TAR25) will help somewhere in the future. Thanks for the comments ovalorange!

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

Again, as much as possible, no spoilers please. I know them, but I won't let that influence my edgic at all this season. Let's see how it goes live.

Logged

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

Discussion of the previous episode only, this does NOT include Previews.

Logged

"I can't speak for production, but I really like that people see us when we're traveling around the world. If you're a fan of the show, ... you're going to be more excited because you want to see what happens."Phil Keoghan

On the (surprising) side, there were only 12 confessionals/voice-overs throughout the leg. (Three from Scott/Blair and Matt/Dana, Two from Sheri/Cole, Matt/Dana, and Burnie/Ashley, and One from Zach/Rachel, Jessica/Brittany, Marty/Hagan).

There were a grand total of 596 cuts throughout the episode showing teams. Therefore, the median is 54.

The Edgic above has been derived with the introductions of the cast not being counted on the first leg.

"Cuts" mean a scene where a team is shown for X seconds before cutting to another team.

Team-By-Team Analysis:

I struggled where to put Sheri & Cole, because they were generally positive throughout the episode, and Cole was a really OTT person. However, upon closer inspection, their entire leg performance had them as fully fleshed out characters, we saw their mindset in almost every way throughout the leg, and thus, I give them the first CP rating of the season - CPP5. You could exchange that for an OTTP5 as well, but they are the only team so far with a semblance of a winning edit. Definitely the only winning contender for now.(Sheri & Cole had 2 Confessionals/Voice-Overs and a whopping 92 cuts devoted to them - nearly 20% of the overall screen-time.)

Brodie & Kurt, however, were the easiest to edgic for this leg. No confessionals, no proper explanation for their actions, their antics (them randomly tripping, them at the Detour, Brodie yelling) easily push them to a one-dimensional OTT3 rating. Winners are usually allowed to be OTT at times, but not too much (Justin/Diana). Watching. (They had 59 cuts - exactly near the median.)

Scott & Blair, on the flip-side, are equally OTT. Not OTT in the sense that they didn't give confessionals or voiceovers (because they did, actually, the most in the leg ), but OTT in the sense that throughout the leg, we mainly had no idea what their mindset was, especially during the Roadblock (there was a short confessional during the Detour, but it was a generic "reading the instructions" confessional that we too often see). Top that with Blair's random comments throughout the leg and her OTT moments (crying at the Pit Stop/Hugging Tyler/Yelling in the Cab/Her Detour quotes) easily push them to an OTT5 rating. Definitely watching as well. (They had three confessionals/voiceovers and 77 cuts - way above the median.)

Dana & Matt ran a quiet leg, but then again, recent winners have proven to be MOR on their first leg, and them dealing out three confessionals/voice-overs (particularly the positive one at the Pit Stop) leads me to put them at MOR3. Definitely a team to keep watching for. (They had 3 Confessionals/Voice-Overs and 56 cuts for them - very very near the median.)

Zach & Rachel, on the same note as Dana & Matt, ran a similarly quiet leg, and their edits are nearly the same, with them only getting much less screentime. However, there are some potentially positive moments (them dancing for like 10 seconds after getting the Mariachi Madness clue + their PS and Race Start Kiss + their Selfie) leads me to put them at a UTRP2. Also watching. (They had 1 Confessional, and only 24 cuts devoted to them. This would normally be a rating worthy of a 1 visibility, but them being on screen relatively longer than Darius & Cameron did pushes them out of the visibility rating of 1, but just barely.)

Marty & Hagan (see Zach & Rachel's writeup and imagine more screentime (but not too much), they did, however, have some moments of them getting their clue and being happy with happy music so they're MORP instead). Watching as well. (They got one confessional and 36 cuts.)

Burnie & Ashley Watching. (see Marty & Hagan except their positive moment is them going ILY to each other and the random bull castration story with the weird sound effect but they got much more screentime so they're MORP too) (They got two confessionals and 40 cuts.)

Tyler & Korey Also watching. (see Burnie & Ashley but slightly more screentime, with zero confessionals and near the median of 51 cuts.)

Jessica & Brittany were shown as pretty mixed throughout the leg. Through moments of them which could be interpreted as positive (them hugging Phil + them at the RB + them "flying the plane"), there are also some moments which may be negative (upon closer inspection, they are the team with the most "omg this sucks" moments throughout the leg with throwaway short cuts of them). With them having these with a few voiceovers and a generally mid-sized screen-time, they are in MORM territory. Still a team to watch. (They got 38 cuts and only one confessional from the airport start, it's pretty far from 54, but their screen-time is definitely longer in total than some others.)

Erin & Joslyn, on the other hand, are the more visible Jessica & Brittany. They were pretty mixed throughout the leg, but them generally being very visible easily makes them the third more visible team in the premiere along with Scott/Blair and Sheri/Cole. Watching. (They got 63 cuts and zero confessionals/voiceovers.)

Darius & Cameron, on the other hand, were very invisible. They weren't shown much, and when they did pop out, they were only shown either getting a clue, doing a task silently, or running. It is no surprise that they are UTR1, as their paltry serving of 19 cuts (only 3% of the episode's screentime which rounds it off to 1:20 - and only half of it has them speaking!) and no confessionals. The fact that them doing a momentous feat (jumping from last to fourth) is treated with no love by the editors (while Sheri did the exact same thing at the Detour and got the inspirational music), leads me to immediately strike them as a team not winning at all via the edit. Sorry guys!

Overall Notes:

-Sheri & Cole are a strong early contender, but considering the new era of TAR25-and Beyond usually having a team giving out winner vibes early on that fizzles a bit later on in the edit department (see Tim & Te Jay/Jelani & Jenny/Jeff & Jackie/Jazmine & Danielle), time will tell. For now, they're the one and only winner pick for this first episode.-Everyone else but Darius & Cameron have a very likely shot to win depending on where their edit shifts. (Darius & Cameron even beat out Amaya in Invisibility on Leg One, I'm already eliminating them from winning.)-Admittedly, this episode was harder to analyse than the TAR25 - 27 premieres due to less confessionals and the confusing first 10 minutes.-This is after rewatching the episode two times.

Logged

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

Discussion of the previous episode only, this does NOT include Previews.

We're in the spoilers forum now anyway but still

« Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 08:14:41 AM by gamerfan09 »

Logged

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

Since when is it prohibited to discuss spoilers in the spoiler section?

Great job gamer, I enjoyed reading the explanations - much better than just plainly giving the table. I would also place Matt & Dana as winner contenders after this leg. That's because of their confessional at the end and the constant cuts to them, when they say nothing relevant, i.e. things that can be said by any other team like "I hope I get this right" and so on. I've noticed that TAR winners often get such MOR edits.Might be wrong though, but these are just my observations

Since when is it prohibited to discuss spoilers in the spoiler section?

Great job gamer, I enjoyed reading the explanations - much better than just plainly giving the table. I would also place Matt & Dana as winner contenders after this leg. That's because of their confessional at the end and the constant cuts to them, when they say nothing relevant, i.e. things that can be said by any other team like "I hope I get this right" and so on. I've noticed that TAR winners often get such MOR edits.Might be wrong though, but these are just my observations

P.S. it must be a bitch counting all the cuts

A. Definitely the closest I went to putting as another contender on the table. But I'll wait a bit like I did on 27 with Kelsey & Joey.

B. It is! But it's so much fun to do the calculations in my notebook

Logged

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

The best way to put it is this thread(Editing and Logic) is for predicting who goes far/who doesn't based on the edited 43 minutes of the show. Therefore it is cheating/pointless/unethical to interfere by discussing spoilers gained from production spoilers.

And mostly I am trying to protect any unspoiled people from inadvertently reading an outcome. Some of our internationals may not want to know results until they are able to watch.

It is just a precaution. Don't get all worked up over where the thread lives, just have fun.

MOVING ON PLEASE.

Logged

"I can't speak for production, but I really like that people see us when we're traveling around the world. If you're a fan of the show, ... you're going to be more excited because you want to see what happens."Phil Keoghan

The best way to put it is this thread(Editing and Logic) is for predicting who goes far/who doesn't based on the edited 43 minutes of the show. Therefore it is cheating/pointless/unethical to interfere by discussing spoilers gained from production spoilers.

This. Let's just move on and try to continue this fun process of trying to figure a winner out ^_^

"But I got smarter, I got harder in the nick of timeHoney, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the timeI've got a list of names and yours is in red, underlinedI check it once, then I check it twice (oh)"

It would be overwhelming impossible to do, but I have often thought that the Insider Vids...the number each team gets, what they chose to show, the slant the team is given there often points to the winners. Would be fun to look at some day.

Logged

"I can't speak for production, but I really like that people see us when we're traveling around the world. If you're a fan of the show, ... you're going to be more excited because you want to see what happens."Phil Keoghan